Effects of blindness on production–perception relationships: Compensation strategies for a lip-tube perturbation of the French [u]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of congenital visual deprivation on speech production in adults was examined in an ultrasound study of compensation strategies for lip-tube perturbation. Acoustic and articulatory analyses of the rounded vowel /u/ produced by 12 congenitally blind adult French speakers and 11 sighted adult French speakers were conducted under two conditions: normal and perturbed (with a 25-mm diameter tube inserted between the lips). Vowels were produced with auditory feedback and without auditory feedback (masked noise) to evaluate the extent to which both groups relied on this type of feedback to control speech movements. The acoustic analyses revealed that all participants mainly altered F2 and F0 and, to a lesser extent, F1 in the perturbed condition - only when auditory feedback was available. There were group differences in the articulatory strategies recruited to compensate; while all speakers moved their tongues more backward in the perturbed condition, blind speakers modified tongue-shape parameters to a greater extent than sighted speakers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".